There is a phenomenon called the “the slam-on”
perpetrated by fraudsters who brake suddenly, usually in slow-moving traffic,
without good cause so that the following vehicle runs into the back of
them. Claims for whiplash and other
injuries follow. (The general rule of the road is that the following vehicle is
at fault for driving too close to avoid running into the one in front, and many
drivers assume there is no defence to the claim. But the general rule can be
displaced where there was no proper reason to do an emergency stop) Fortunately,
these incidents are quite rare. They are rightfully condemned not only
as fraudulent, but dangerous to other
road users.
Insurance companies will sometimes allege a “slam-on”
where the circumstances do not justify it.
Once such instance was Marco’s case.
He was on his way to his local Cash & Carry to buy
food for his grocery store. One of his
employees sat in the passenger seat.
When Marco pulled up his car in front of a zebra crossing to allow a
pedestrian to cross, he was rear-ended
by a much heavier vehicle and pushed forward a considerable distance. Although Marco’s passenger was relatively
unhurt, Marco suffered muscular and
other problems to his back which kept him in hospital for six days. He was off work six months subsequently, with restriction of mobility and considerable
pain, particularly in his back. His sleep was affected, he suffered low mood and was prescribed
anti-depressants.
The insurers concluded that as this main road is an area
known for staged accidents, Marco’s accident was similarly staged and therefore
they denied all liability. As importantly,
they denied Marco any help in getting rehabilitation for his injuries.
We told the insurers that if they had evidence that this
was a staged accident, they should
disclose it now because it was holding up the proper resolution of Marco’s
claim. We did not want to pursue a
fraudulent claim, any more than they wanted to pay out on one. Unfortunately,
the pedestrian had disappeared so we could not call on his evidence. In reality,
they had nothing to disclose.
Their case was built on sand and supposition.
Fortunately, the
insurance company uses an experienced legal firm of defendant lawyers and
shortly after the case was referred to their lawyers, we had a call abandoning the allegation that
this was a staged “slam-on” and accepting liability for the accident.
After 6 months or so Marco was back at work but his
business had suffered the loss of his labours in the meantime with a dip in
profits. However, his return to physical health caused his mood
to lighten and he got over the depressive episode which had been as troublesome
to him as any physical injury.
Medical reports were commissioned but before these were
received, the insurers offered a settlement of £40,000 to close the case and
were able to provide a sensible breakdown of their calculation. Marco thought this was a fair offer and he
accepted it. There is of course a
problem with “pre-medical” offers. Until
we have a medical report setting out not only the injuries but the
prognosis, we cannot properly advise the
claimant what the value of his claim will likely be. But we will have a
reasonably good instinctive feel whether the offer is simply not worth
considering, or a proper offer, given the time the claimant took to recover. The decision whether to accept a pre-medical
offer is the client’s, not ours and in this case we were able to tell Marco that
the offer was one he could accept in the knowledge he might not do better in
court if he proved all his losses.
Many claimants will trade off the possibility of a better
outcome against an early resolution of their claim.
Under the settlement,
the insurers also agreed to pay Marco’s costs in full.
